1992 (10) TMI 256 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved: The judgment involves the interpretation of Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the sale and possession of counterfeit government stamps, and the determination of whether the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps were counterfeit.

Summary:

Issue 1: Conviction under Sections 258 and 259 IPC
The appellant was convicted under Sections 258 and 259 IPC for selling counterfeit court-fee stamps and possessing them with the intent to use or dispose of them as genuine stamps. The High Court found him guilty based on the recovery of counterfeit stamps from his possession and his admission of selling them. The appellant claimed he purchased the stamps from the treasury as genuine, but evidence proved otherwise.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Sections 258 and 259 IPC
Sections 258 and 259 IPC deal with the sale and possession of counterfeit government stamps. The sections impose punishment for selling or offering counterfeit stamps and for possessing such stamps with the knowledge that they are counterfeit and intending to use them as genuine.

Issue 3: Knowledge or Reason to Believe
The crucial question was whether the appellant had knowledge or reason to believe that the stamps he possessed and sold were counterfeit. The judgment emphasized that "knowledge" and "reason to believe" are distinct mental states, with the latter requiring a higher level of conviction based on probable reasoning.

Issue 4: Assessment of Accused's Explanation
The accused's claim that he purchased all stamps, including counterfeit ones, from the treasury was deemed false as he failed to provide evidence or official records to support this assertion. The lack of proof led to the inference that the accused had both knowledge and reason to believe that the stamps were counterfeit, justifying his conviction under Sections 258 and 259 IPC.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 258 and 259 IPC, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the adequacy of the sentence imposed. The appeal was dismissed based on the established evidence and legal interpretation of the relevant provisions.